The pic does not resolve the ambiguity that I can tell.
Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I agree. But not everyone who claims to be a man of God is in fact a man of God. And for the record that doesn't occur very often, Islam and corrupt dark age Catholic leadership excluded.
Hard to say when the Dark Ages ended, isn't it? Salem, the Thirty Year's War, Ireland, Jonestown. Everywhere that ever had a pogrom.
The pic does not resolve the ambiguity that I can tell.
I looked it up to make sure my understanding was correct. I wouldn't assume an atheist would be egocentric or have no empathy. It's the characteristic of not feeling guilt that I was really keying on. Why would an atheist ever feel guilt? If you acted on logic in pursuit of your desires and there is no absolute right or wrong, it seems like guilt would never be an issue for an athiest. "Ah, so you're incredibly arrogant and presumptious. Thanks for letting us know."
I base my position on scripture. If God says he put that knowledge there and you say you don't believe in God. I have a choice of which of the two of you I'm going to believe. I think God is right, which means you've somehow repressed or lost that knowledge.
That's not what the Hindus told me. Why should I believe you and not them?
I replied earlier with a post about internal contraditions in Hindu.
Please actually study the religion before making ignorant comments like this.
Well they believe in reincarnation do they not. Perhaps you are reacting to my use of the word "threaten". Or perhaps I confused being good enough with losing all feelings of attachment to the illusory world. Sometimes my knowledge of eastern religions does blur. I'm by no means an expert in them. Once I learned enough to be able to dismiss them, there is no point in studying them much.
You've not yet demonstrated this as true.
Did you see the earlier posts in this thread about proof. The proof consists of prophecies which show God's foreknowledge and the miracles which show God's power. I've also pointed out that the books "Evidence that demands a verdict I & II" by Josh McDowell do a good job of rehashing some of the many proofs of God and scripture.
Oh there's always the occasional evil person impersonating a man of God. Shouldn't be too hard to spot them if you study God's word instead of just listening to them. You really shouldn't be surprised that Satan works hard to attribute such works to Christianity.
Not only that, being a Christian and being forgiven does not make you immune to temptation or sin.
You can tell he hasn't read a stitch. Tribune7?
Christian non-violence occurs a lot more often.
In the list provided...Take out the examples guided by Islam or Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons, Christians don't claim them, so don't burden us with them. Although I doubt that either the Witnesses or Mormons could justify their behavior by any of their new improved scriptures.
Then take out the people who are testing God by demanding a miracle instead of realizing He sent them doctors. Sometimes stupidity occurs despite Christianity.
Then take out the murderers who are just trying to cop an insanity plea by saying God told them to. Some of them might be mentally ill, but anyone who knows the scriptures will know that's not God's voice in your head telling you to murder. Even the guy who claims to be following Abraham should have recognized that Abraham knew and stated that God would provide the sacrifice prior to tying up Isaac.
What you are left with are some stupid people who don't know the scriptures. Scripture say use a rod for discipline not duct tape your kid from head to toe until he suffocates in his own vomit. Scripture says eat meat, not starve your kids and feed them only herbs until they starve to death.
Just because these idiots claim a religious defense you should not impune all religions with acts like these. Patriotism isn't the last appeal of the scoundrel. I think it's religion. These are all isolated examples that are all contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
Because I know that there is absolute right and wrong. I feel guilt when I do something that violates that.
"Lack of foresight" unless it's due to negligence on my part wouldn't cause me to feel guilty, even if someone is injured from my actions. Compassion and empathy of course, but not guilt. For example, I stopped in the road to make a left hand turn and some dude ran into the back of me and his arm was cut. Did I feel guilty. No. Was I concerned for his arm. Yes. I wasn't negligent even though I didn't foresee him running into me.
And you argue it as though it were already demonstrated as fact to people who don't believe that your scriptures are infallable Truths.
Yes. So. I pointed out several proofs. I can't make you believe them, just like there are some people who don't believe man walked on the moon. No amount of evidence will suffice.
"Which were as valid as the alleged internal contradictions in Christianity."
I'm not aware of any valid internal contradictions in Christianity. Are you saying the internal contradictions I pointed out aren't valid?
I daresay that summary, while based upon fundamental truths within the religion, is both oversimplistic and not an entirely accurate representation of your beliefs.
LOL, Well yours is inaccurate only because it implies that God gets pissed off because you didn't accept His son. When in fact God gets pissed off because of the evil you have done and your continued rebellion in not accepting His pardon through His son just didn't help your case any.
In other words, despite your ignorance of them, you know that they're all false anyway
Yes exactly. Well almost, unless it's Christianity under another name. I don't have to be an expert in them. Once you see an internal contradiction in them, you don't have to continue on to be an expert. Once you meet the real and living Lord, you don't even need an internal contradiction. I realize that doesn't help an Atheist very much, but it's all I need. If you wanted to painstakingly go through the major religions and have me point out why they are obviously false, I probably could. But that won't convince you Christianity is right. In fact, you seem to be of the opinion that if most religions are false they probably all are.
"Yes. Did you see my response to a commentary on atheists who ignore these "proofs"?"
Probably not. What # was it.
None of which have been demonstrated to any degree further than the faith-works of various other religions that I've seen.
Really? I'm not aware of any religion having substantial prophecies fulfilled like Judeo-Christianity, or the scope of miracles.
Prophecies applied to contemporary events are always retrofitted after the fact, rather than applied before the event occurs.
What do you mean? Prophecy by definition occurs before the fact. What do you mean by retrofitted?
"And I replied on those. "
With the exception of 223. Which just says I haven't proved anything. I don't see a response. THis thread responds to it more by saying that prophecies are retrofitted and comparable to prophecies and miracles in other religions. But I believe many of the prophecies that have occurred in Judeo-Christianity were very clear. And that there are very clear ones prophecized for the future. We had a very clear prophecy that Israel would have to become a nation again in order for end-time events to occur and that it would become a nation in a day. That was fulfilled in 1949. Do you consider that a retrofit?
Because they don't restate the obvious. Scripture calls man to a standard higher than any human law. Love is not rational. Self interest is rational. God calls us to Love, to self sacrifice.That's not obvious. At least not in our condition.
Ah, but there are different kinds of love. There's the fundamentally selfish love of another person whom you value & therefore cherish for their positive attributes, and there's the altruistic love of someone whom you pity for their negative attributes. I say one kind of love is healthy and life-affirming. The other kind is just co-dependency.
Both kinds of love may be as natural (i.e. common) as the other, but one kind is clearly the kind you should be seeking out & nurturing in your life. It's obvious to most people once they've experienced both kinds of love - usually when they're teenagers.
LOL! He's not a true Scotsman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.